Trying an authorship index

Hunt, R. 1991. Nature, 352: 187.

Sir D Few issues in scientific life can now match authorship of collaborative work for its potential to distract and destroy. The use of bibliometric indices as performance indicators placees great weight upon uncertai foundations. How does one compare senior versus junior, staff member versus visitor, money versus time, or backache versus headache versus heartache?

The unit in which I work uses a set of formal rules based upon a simple points table. The maximum score possible is 100 points. Each potential author is awarded the highest realistic score in each category; whoever achieves a total of 25 points is offered joint authorship in rank order of total score. In the event of ties, recent near-misses are considered; if none exists, alphabetical order is used.

The scheme is used mainly for experimental papers in plant ecology. A variant for theoretical studies has a 15-point scale for data-capture and a 25-point scale for specialist input. However, we have avoided too much tinkering because simplicity and generality are important goals. Preliminary experience with these rules has been encouraging D perhaps readers may wish to test them for themselves?

Roderick Hunt

NERC Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology

Deparment of Animal and Plant Sciences

The University of Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

Coauthorship scoring system

Intellectual input

(planning/designing/interpreting)

No contribution 0

One detailed discussion 5

Several detailed discussions 10

Correspondence or longer meetings 15

Substantial liaisons 20

Closest possible involvement 25

Practical Input: data-capture

(setting-up/observing/recording/abstracting)

No contribution 0

Small contribution 5

Moderate indirect contribution 10

Moderate direct contribution 15

Major indirect contribution 20

Major direct contribution 25

Practical input: beyond data-capture

(Data processing/organizing)

No contribution 0

Minor or brief assistance 5

Substantial or prolonged assistance 10

Specialist input from related fields

No contribution 0

Brief or routine advice 5

Specially tailored assistance 10

Whole basis of approach 15

Literary input

(Contribution to first complete draft of manuscript)

No contribution 0

Edited others' material 5

Contributed small sections 10

Contributed moderate proportion 15

Contributed majority 20

Contributed virtually all 25